Will County Legislative & Judicial Committee met Oct. 11.
Here are the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Mr. Marcum led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. ROLL CALL
Chair Natalie Coleman called the meeting to order at 9:02 AM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Natalie Coleman | Chair | Present | |
| Denise E. Winfrey | Vice Chair | Absent | |
| Julie Berkowicz | Member | Present | |
| Debbie Kraulidis | Member | Absent | |
| Tyler Marcum | Member | Present | |
| Sherry Newquist | Member | Present | |
| Judy Ogalla | Member | Absent | |
| Tom Weigel | Member | Present |
Also Present at the Meeting: M. Fricilone, N. Palmer, B. Adams
Present from the State's Attorney's Office: M. Tatroe
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. WC Legislative & Judicial Committee - Regular Meeting - Sep 13, 2022 9:00 AM
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tyler Marcum, Member SECONDER: Tom Weigel, Member AYES: Coleman, Berkowicz, Marcum, Newquist, Weigel ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis, Ogalla |
2. Mrs. Koch Resignation Statement
Mrs. Koch read the statement attached I am resigning effective immediately, from the Will County Board and Forest Preserve District of Will County.
Mr. Fricilone asked Mrs. Tatroe how does this effect anything in the past?
Mrs. Tatroe replied I don’t think it’s going to affect anything on the County Board because in the general proposition the courts don’t go backward and invalidate. Is it possible that someone could challenge votes in the past? I suppose it is, but it is not the normal course that the courts will go and invalidate something going back.
Ms. Newquist asked why is Mrs. Koch considered not eligible?
Mrs. Tatroe replied there is an act, a law on the books and it’s called The Local Government Prohibited Activities Act and in that the County Board members are prohibited from serving on other Boards unless there is a specification allowing it and there are certain positions as most people are aware of you can be a township supervisor as well as a County Board member. There are other things that are specifically specified. There’s also a general proposition that doesn’t prohibit you from serving on a unit of local government as long as there is not a contract in place. In addition, to that Act there’s also a common law principle called a Compatibility of Offices. If you cannot in all instances perform all the duties of both offices, then they are considered incompatible. The issue that came up with the Veterans Assistance Council (VAC), the Commission, and County Board is that.
County Board votes on the budgeting and the County provides a lot of services to the VAC from H.R., to payroll, IT support, all those things that creates an issue where you shouldn’t be serving on both boards.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked Mrs. Tatroe how will this impact until the election that particular district?
Mrs. Tatroe replied the same as any vacancy. I would expect that the issue would have to be placed on the County Board agenda to declare a vacancy in that position and then there are so many days for the County Board to fill it. In this case, I’ll have to do the math but I’m thinking there will be the election before you run out of time. Rather the County Executive will choose to fill it, or it will just remain vacant until after the election. I don’t really know. I guess theoretically it is possible to fill it for 1 month or even a couple of weeks so then an appointment would seem silly. Unless you held a special meeting.
V. MISCELLANEOUS LEGISLATIVE REPORTS
1. ISACo Updates
(Information)
VI. OLD BUSINESS
1. Federal Legislative Update
(Smith, Dawson & Andrews)
Ms. Coleman stated Mr. Palmer is going to speak on Federal Legislative Updates because Smith & Dawson could not be with us today.
Mr. Palmer stated as Chair Coleman said, Smith, Dawson & Andrews could not be here due to a conflict so, they emailed me last night. I can send this out afterwards to people who aren’t here and the rest of the Board. This would have been their update:
Congress is funding the federal government and current levels through continued resolution or a CR that ends on Dec 16. It sounds like there should be enough amendment regardless of election outcome to pass 1 final spending bill to cover the remainder of fiscal year 2023.
This is important to us and this is my commentary, because there’s a couple of projects that are in that bill that are for Will County. The 3 that are currently in the bill is $1.5 million marked for Laraway Rd, $1.1 million for the Rte. 53 bike path, and $500,000.00 for the Fairmont water and sewer project. We’ll continue to monitor that with the Executive’s Office and report back on that but those were 3 good things that the County was looking for funding for so, that’s in the works and hopefully going to happen. They also noted that Congress will also with the past Water Research Development Act (WRDA) which we talked to some of the Board members that’s been on the Board for a while remember we’ve been to Washington many times to talk to the Army Core of Engineers. This deals with all the big water projects. With the passage of that includes language that’s helpful for Will County and its water infrastructure projects. Very important for the rivers and streams like that. This kind of segways into the next item that Smith, Dawson & Andrews have been working with County Departments. on the FY24 Federal Agenda; that’s Federal fiscal year 2024 but our 2023 calendar year Federal Agenda and they should text the County Board in the next few weeks.
Ms. Coleman stated there is a coal/ash situation in the southern part of Joliet. Is that part of the water infrastructure included?
Mr. Palmer replied I know what you’re talking about. That could be affected by Water Research Development Act (WRDA) but that’s kind of an environmental issue and I think that’s probably Illinois EPA and Federal EPA. They been publicly used, and I attended a few of those over the years. This is one of those issues just to keep it very simple, they have this coal/ash material which is left over from the burning coal and there’s questions on whether pulling that into the water supply or whatnot and they must monitor that and do remediation. We can get more information.
Ms. Coleman stated I know Congressman Foster’s office has called me about it but that’s been some months.
2. Creation of FY24 Federal Legislative Agenda
(Smith Dawson & Andrews)
Mr. Schaben stated on the Federal Agenda staff met with Smith, Dawson & Andrews, Curry & Associates, and Mr. Hassert on Aug 9 & 10, to get feedback and updates to our agenda. I know that we are still working on updating that and that’s why we don’t have a draft available for this committee to review but that should be available and ready for discussion next month.
The FY2023 State Legislative Priorities and Requests the action items are as follows:
• Will County Department of Transportation (Authority to proceed with seeking legislation for Quick Take on Specified Property)
• Health Department (Increase in State Funding for the Local Health Protection Grant from the Illinois Department of Public Health)
• Will County Clerk (Increase the mandated fee associated with persons filling a petition for discovery)
• Land Use Department (DuPage River Study)
• Paint Stewardship Legislation (Encourage efforts to initiate and pass paint stewardship legislation)
• Housing Stabilization (Continued state funding for the Court Based Rental Assistance Program)
• Carpet Legislation (Encourage efforts to initiate and pass carpet recycling legislation)
• Packaging Stewardship (ERP) Legislation (Encourage efforts to initiate and pass Packaging Stewardship Legislation)
Mr. Fricilone asked for the Will County Clerk’s there’s a $10.00 fee to recover cost. Do we know what the costs are? Are we going to put a dollar amount on there?
Mr. Schaben replied it would be dependent on the scope of the recount which we need to get more information from the County Clerk.
Mr. Fricilone stated there is a capital request for $14 million dollars for election equipment. We all knew this was coming a couple of years ago. Is this on the CIP and do we have a plan to try to find that money somewhere?
Mr. Schaben replied I think the idea with regards to the deficit is you try to spread it out over several years. I think generally the discussion that’s happening all around the country regarding elections and all that insecurity there may be an opportunity either federal fund it or state fund it to try to attract support from other entities for that.
Mr. Fricilone asked on the carpet legislation what can we do to mandate the commercial company staff to recycle their carpet? Most big companies already do, and they do with a manufacturer who has a program for that already. Is there anyway we can create an ordinance for that?
Mrs. Tatroe replied I would have to look and see if there is any legislation that authorizes us to do that I can have one of the assistants do that.
Mr. Fricilone stated I wouldn’t do it for residential necessarily, but the businesses already have this, and we’re pass the point for some companies to still have 40- year-old carpet. We’re past the point of that old stuff that isn’t recyclable. The new stuff is recyclable but to the backing and the nylon but most of the major manufacturers have recycling programs, but they’re not forced to use it.
Mr. Palmer stated there are a couple of things just so we keep it on the radar. I know County Board member Ogalla is not here today, but we talked about it in the pass. There are some issues in the South Suburban Airport footprint, and I think we wanted to put that on the radar, so I’ll follow-up with Mr. Schaben. The other issue for informational last month this committee approved a request for the Safe-T-Act asking for an extension. The committee was going on while the deadline was passing for last month’s board meeting so, that’s not on this agenda because it was already approved by this committee but that will be on this month’s County Board meeting. If there are any ideas still out there that you may think of send them to me or Mr. Schaben or both of us. The goal was to try to approve both the State and Federal agendas next month before this board ends its duties.
3. Update on State Legislative Issues
(Curry & Associates)
Ms. Curry stated I did hear the presentation that Mr. Palmer and Mr. Schaben gave regarding our State legislative agenda for next year. I will have my comments from the meetings that we had a month or two ago to them by the end of this month and for the entire committee for our state agenda for 2023. There’s not much to report. The Legislature obviously will return for the veto session after the election. They’ll be in veto session from Nov 15-17 and Nov 29-Dec 1. Members have been asked to be prepared to meet for the lame duck session from Jan 4-Jan 10. My expectation of the session is I don’t see a lot on the agenda except for dealing with the Safe-T-Act. I know about the meetings that have been taking place with various stakeholders over the past few months. If there is not an approvement or if they don’t have all the discussions and negotiations completed, I expect maybe the only thing that the Legislature might do in a fall veto session is do an extension of the deadline which obviously the Legislature Committee already approved and sent to the Board. That will be an additional 6 months for the General Assembly to make a change if necessary. Other than that, I don’t see any other big issues happening during the veto session. There were no bills that were vetoed. I believe that the General Assembly may shave a few days off of the 6-day veto session and save any of their real work for the lame duck session in January.
4. Creation of FY23 State Legislative Agenda
(Curry & Associates)
Mr. Schaben stated on Aug 9 & 10, we met to discuss what kind of request we would like to bring forward for consideration for this body to be included in State Legislative priorities and requests. In the packets is essentially a summarization of the discussion that took place on those 2 days, and we tried to indicate what is legislative request, what is appropriation request, capital request, and I’m happy to walk through these individually. The first one on the list for consideration by this body is Quick Take legislation that Mr. Ronaldson has spoken to in the past and the transportation committee. From a tiny perspective this would be something if the County wanted to pursue Quick Take legislation which has in the past and the ideal time for discussion would be now in preparation for the next spring session.
Mr. Ronaldson stated I have spoken to Public Works a couple times this year way back in February and then more recently. Quick Take is an aspect of Eminent Domain that we can utilize. Eminent Domain is when we go and get property because we can’t come to a negotiable agreement. With Eminent Domain, it is taking a very long time to get through the court system and Mrs. Tatroe can attest to. I think some of the outlooks take 3 to 5 years to even come to a jury trial if it goes that route which is unacceptable for our projects because the cost keeps going up, plus welfare to the public getting these projects done. One aspect to the Eminent Domain law is Quick Take. You still go to court. You go before the judge twice. The only difference is we get the property upfront. There’s a preliminary just compensation established upfront usually around our appraisal or a little above depending on what the arguments are at that time. We pay them and we get the property so we can move forward with the project. Then the court proceedings move on from there which means the team moves before the court again if they don’t come to a settlement. So, it’s good for us because we get the property quickly. Arguably it could be good for the property owner because they get their money upfront as well, but they still get their day in court. I don’t want anyone to misunderstand what Quick Take does. They will get their day in court. It’s a good tool for us. Unfortunately, we must go to the legislature by project-by project basis to get authority. We’ve done that 3 times in the past with Will County. We have 5 projects that are coming up this year and the next construction season so we would like to move on those. So, we had to have a public hearing which I mentioned at the Public Works Committee last week that we would like to bring it in November, but I still must confirm it with Mr. Hassert and his group as to dates as when we must have these in by and depending on that is when I’ll bring it forward. Are there any questions on the memo or the projects that I have listed? Any questions on Quick Take in general?
Ms. Coleman stated I didn’t see the 5 projects listed, are they in here? If you don’t have it, can you please send it as soon as you can.
Ms. Newquist asked I know from our discussion in transportation. We’ve used this where people are willing to sell, the only thing, the sticky point is the price basically. What happens with Quick Take if the property owner doesn’t want to sell? Traditionally that goes where you’re using eminent domain and traditionally that goes to a much longer court route. How does Quick Take come into play when you have a property owner who doesn’t want to sell?
Mr. Ronaldson replied it’s the same process whether they want to sell or not. The judge or the attorney will establish upfront whether we have the right to.
Ms. Newquist commented the criteria for determining if we can take that property is the same whether it’s Eminent Domain or Quick Take?
Mr. Ronaldson replied Quick Take is in the Eminent Domain laws, a subsection of it so, it’s Eminent Domain.
Mr. Weigel asked I have a question about the Bruce Rd. bridge whether that’s going to be on our agenda or not? The State or the Federal.
Mr. Palmer replied that is on our radar and we’re actually going to talk about that at the Executive meeting this week, but we can definitely craft something for next month to put it in the agenda. Just to clarify because you and I have talked about this a little bit I just want to make sure is there something specific you like to focus on or recommend that we focus on and just do it?
Mr. Weigel commented there’s a problem with nobody wants to take responsibility for the bridge. Our transportation department doesn’t want to take it, the State doesn’t want to take it. Now, the State own all the other bridges over the canal and in Joliet, Lockport, Romeoville as far as I know. I think the State should take the responsibility for it. If we have to have legislation to tell them this is your bridge, I think we should put that in there.
VII. OTHER OLD BUSINESS
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
1. Supporting Changes to the Veterans Assistance Commission (VAC) Law (Mitch Schaben)
Mr. Schaben stated during the last CMAP meeting Mr. McCoy with ISACo did a presentation on the DC legislation. The General Assembly passed legislation and made some significant changes to the Veteran’s Assistance Commissions across the states in the last earlier session of the Governor signing this into law this June. Mr. McCoy indicated ISACo is working with the Attorney General to craft legislation that would sort of clarify a few missions and state statues as well as make some changes; there’s been some kind of consummation that’s been bubbling up from counties regarding the changes that happened in the legislation. I’m going to point out 2 because they are referenced in the letter that’s in the packet. One of the major changes that happened is the legislation established a minimal amount of annual appropriation funding that’s equal to the lessor of .02% of last known accessed value of the taxable property in the county or an amount determined by VAC to be just and necessary. There are disputes over what just and necessary are and it’s being resolved in the Circuit Court right now, but it sort of forces the County’s hand to provide an annual appropriation. The legislation also removed the County’s sort of oversight of the VAC, so I think the general concern is that the County is forced to provide an appropriation one way or another just so we have sort of oversight into how those funds are used. I know that ISACo has indicated that in all their communications to potential bill sponsors there are requests from ISACo to require that the financial audit be completed and presented to the County Board which is not the case. I think the funds that could be levied would be subject to PTEL but the way that the legislation is currently written it’s not. I think that ISACo is seeking to add clarifying language in a trailer bill. Generally, back to funding administrative services so the County is obviously required to fund administrative services for the VAC but the County does not have any oversight and how much those salaries are for, how much those administrative costs are and there is no sort of recourse for the County if those funds are misappropriated. I think ISACo is saying either remove the oversight and don’t require the County to provide administrative funds because now that the VAC’s have a general level of support that they will annually receive through a tax levy or a direct appropriation from the County or provide some oversight back for the County to the VAC’s. It does sound like the trailer bill potentially could be discussed in the veto session as Ms. Curry indicated, I would imagine; and it will be addressed in the spring session. The only issue with the spring session is that the law will go into effect Jan 1, 2023, so there will be a time period of a little bit of uncertainty. There’s a letter that’s included in the agenda that ISACo drafted that is sort of a model letter that the County can use in advocating for the VAC legislation. We’re requesting approval from this body and the County Board for leadership to send a letter to our entire delegation advocating for changes through the trailer bill for the VAC legislation.
Ms. Coleman asked if the oversight is being removed and we’re saying we don’t want to contribute additional funds for administrative costs.
Mr. Schaben replied correct. Give us the oversight and the administrative funds can continue or remove the administrative funds and remove the oversight.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked the tax levy that you are talking about is that an existing tax levy or is this a new tax levy in January?
Mr. Schaben replied it would be a new one. It’s an existing tax levy that is not currently required. From my understanding the legislation changed it so that it’s either the County must provide the funds through a tax levy or must provide direct appropriation to the VAC.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked does Will County currently have that tax levy?
Mr. Schaben replied no. The VAC is currently funded through the County’s annual budget.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked so we would have the ability to continue to do that or create a new tax levy? And that would happen throughout the state or it’s an option?
Mr. Schaben replied correct it’s an option throughout the state.
Mrs. Berkowicz stated I’m curious about the current controversy with our VAC. What are our oversight abilities with the situation that’s going on there right now?
Mr. Schaben replied I would say if you read the state statutes as it sits today there is no limiting oversight abilities that the County has. There’s no language in there that requires the expenditures of funds from the VAC to be done in a manner that is consistent with the County’s purchasing code. However, because the County provides allocation to the VAC that’s sort of a grey area in my mind. There are no real clarifications in state statutes, but you provide County resources to a county extension then you would assume that the purchasing policy that the County sets would be applicable responses.
Mrs. Tatroe commented I certainly we welcome some clarification from the state legislatures. There is case law out there. In the statute there’s kind of this language general oversight of the VAC, however, the courts have interpreted that such that if the superintendent of the VAC brings forward an invoice and says, it’s appropriate the County does not have the authority to challenge that. They have to pay it upon the approval of the superintendent. The oversight is kind of limited to doing audits. There is currently the authority I think to generally audit for purposes of grant administration and things like that but not the kind of oversight that you typically think of so certainly we would appreciate some clarification from the Legislature on the issue.
Ms. Newquist asked one of the things I wasn’t quite clear on when I was reading this. The .02% that had to come out of our corporate fund because we don’t have a separate levy for the VAC are you saying that we would have the right to create a separate levy or appropriation specifically for the VAC with additional monies instead of taking it out of our corporate fund?
Mr. Schaben replied correct. The only thing is there’s still language in there that would require the County to provide hidden administrative costs which that’s kind of why ISACo is saying if you’re going to require that the taxes be done or if the County does a tax levy, then you also need those administrative funds as well. The thought is that should be covered as well.
Ms. Newquist stated that’s a good point but we’re not home rule. Nobody is except Cook County. I didn’t know if we had the ability to just wave our magic wand and say, now we’re going to do a .02%, but it sounds like we do basically. We are funding $1 million dollars; how does that compare to the .02%?
Mrs. Tatroe replied I don’t know. There were some general comments made at the time this legislation was pending that the .02% is a much greater monetary amount than what the County Board currently appropriates for them, so the implication would be they would not need additional administrative funds if the .02% were passed.
Ms. Coleman asked what is the recommendation coming from the Executive’s Office and when do you want us to move on this?
Mr. Schaben replied I would say, I think from an administrative standpoint we would support legislation that ISACo was pushing for because additional clarity and clearing up this oversight authority issue would be helpful. We would ask that the County Board approve a letter to go out from leadership to our delegations and express their support for this legislation and what’s being proposed as changed, in addition we would encourage to have this included as part of the County/State Legislative Agenda as well.
Mr. Palmer commented for board member’s sake we haven’t done a lot of these; I appreciate Mr. Schaben coming to the committee with this because sometimes timing doesn’t work out where we can bring things to a committee. In the past leadership has made the decision to do letters with the County Executive and send them off and that’s usually during session when things are moving much quicker. In this case we do have the opportunity to do a formal resolution and pass that and the Executive can sign it. We’ll still do a letter on top of it with the resolution but then the full Board is going to show it’s support for this. It’s still before veto session and I agree with Mr. Schaben, we should include this in our state agenda book too just because whatever happens in the veto session some is going to carry over to the spring so we’re on record doing that. There’s just a question does the committee want to move it to full board? It’s a little more formal then.
Ms. Newquist suggested I’ll make a motion that we adopt a resolution.
Motion carries.
IX. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mrs. Olenek stated flu season has officially started. We anticipate that it’s going to be horrible this year especially since people have stopped wearing face masks. We have flu shots at the health department. You can call (815) 740-8143, this is our immunization department to make an appointment. We ask that you make an appointment because they are busy. You can get a flu shot, COVID shot, COVID booster at our department but CVS, Walgreens, Jewel gives them as well. I’m just encouraging that you get your flu shot this year. In addition, IDPH, for your own information, has every FAQ sheet on vaccines on their website. If you go to http://www.IDPH.Illinois.gov website and type in what you want, you will get a fact sheet for that vaccine.
X. ANNOUNCEMENTS/REPORTS BY CHAIR
XI. EXECUTIVE SESSION
XII. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to adjourn meeting @ 9:58 a.m.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Sherry Newquist, Member SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, Member AYES: Coleman, Berkowicz, Marcum, Newquist, Weigel ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis, Ogalla |
Alerts Sign-up